UK Whats The Point Of PFAW

[IrishSights]

The police; there is a standing agreement at Home Office level. Show this to said police Sgt....

There is nothing in these documents to guide the police in how to proceed when commercial operations is being carried out without a permit.

They are just not going to take further. What we need is one of these Home Office blurbs to be issues to police on the subject of commercial use without a permit. Then you can wave it to whoever.

Until then I'll just keep on encouraging the benefits of a PfCO holder to potential clients

PfCO Holder
BNUC-S Qualified

 

[Cornscot]

It might not be written in black and white agreed, however, if someone is operating commercially without a permit they are breaking ANO Art. 94(5) which can then be investigated. But, agreed, I am working on educating those that employ the rogue operators

 

[tweaker]

Someone needs to take OWNERSHIP of investigating/prosecution simple.
Educating owners nice idea but enforcement is the only way forward.
Keep reporting.
Remember "the squeeky hinge gets the oil!!"

 

[NickU]

Until the brown smelly stuff hits the turbofan, neither PC Plod, Dixon of Dock Green, Inspector Cleaseau nor the CAA will care. Once brown smelly stuff has hit, then they'll all be falling over themselves to investigate.

Basically, just make sure you're not the one who put the brown smelly stuff in the air in the first place. That's why we do PFaW/PfCo and have insurance.

 

[tweaker]

Until the brown smelly stuff hits the turbofan, neither PC Plod, Dixon of Dock Green, Inspector Cleaseau nor the FAA will care. Once brown smelly stuff has hit, then they'll all be falling over themselves to investigate.

Basically, just make sure you're not the one who put the brown smelly stuff in the air in the first place. That's why we do PFaW/PfCo and have insurance.

All good points BUT a law has been broken. If it is not enforced then it is not law. Happens when all new qualifications/industrial applications arrive.
Think cars driving licences taxis.
We can remove the grey mist/area by reporting and chasing up response.
It will provide clarity and remove frustration from legit holders

 

[NickU]

Tax evasion happens, speeding happens, copyright theft happens, fraud happens. Until it becomes a big enough issue that they *have* to take note, they've always got better things to do, like making coffee, doing the paperwork, and hoping no-one notices.

I'm not condoning it, all I'm saying is it'll be taken care of only once it's an issue that they can throw a big enough book at At the moment, all these guys running business UAV stuff without pfco & insurance are just low level noise and coppers and CAA have got bigger fish to chase... like parking fraud at East Midlands airport. That involved millions in anti competitive practices, but fines for those involved where all reduced to nil and wristies were slapped.

There'll always be lowballs that play to the bottom end of the market and are happy to use uninsured amateurs. Our best bet for keeping our jobs and income is to add the value the middle and higher end markets want, then uncle bob with his toy drone and poor quality video edits won't steal our business.

if you want to prosecute people, then go after those that use the uncle bobs, make it illegal to use anyone without insurance and permits, corporate liability. So basically you end up penalising those who commission and use the 'illegal' work. Easier to legislate for and easier for the boys in blue to get the evidence and prosecute. Do enough of them with some big fines, word gets on the street and most companies will start doing things properly. Jobs a good'un then. The problem is there's no penalty for anyone at the minute, those commissioning the work, and those performing the job.

Just my 2p worth

 

[Cornscot]

penalising those who commission and use the 'illegal' work.

Yep.

 

[stuartpb]

TBH take some advice, you guys need to stop worrying what others are doing and put that time and effort in to your business showing your customers why using a qualified pilot is the way forward, running around pointing fingers gets you no where trust m, I have seen people hunt down all the bad guys only to end up going to the wall them selves and blame them when in fact if they had just concentrated on their work it would have been fine.

I agree , I look at holding a PfCO, the fact that I've written an operations safety case that has been approved and have shown I'm a competent operator and hold the relevant insurances as my proof of professionalism to prospective and existing clients. It's what separates me from the donut down the pub (or wherever) who happens to have a drone and wants to make a quick couple of quid.

Having said that though, it worries me that the donut down the pub is going to be the one who forces the government's and CAA's hand and we end up seeing even more restrictive measures being put in place as a result of the donut down the pub's actions. If the police aren't enforcing as they should be, then the chances of that are significantly raised I'd have thought?

 

[tweaker]

Tax evasion happens, speeding happens, copyright theft happens, fraud happens. Until it becomes a big enough issue that they *have* to take note, they've always got better things to do, like making coffee, doing the paperwork, and hoping no-one notices.

I'm not condoning it, all I'm saying is it'll be taken care of only once it's an issue that they can throw a big enough book at At the moment, all these guys running business UAV stuff without pfco & insurance are just low level noise and coppers and can have got bigger fish to chase... like parking fraud at East Midlands airport. That involved millions in anti competitive practices, but fines for those involved where all reduced to nil and wristies were slapped.

There'll always be lowballs that play to the bottom end of the market and are happy to use uninsured amateurs. Our best bet for keeping our jobs and income is to add the value the middle and higher end markets want, then uncle bob with his toy drone and poor quality video edits won't steal our business.

if you want to prosecute people, then go after those that use the uncle bobs, make it illegal to use anyone without insurance and permits, corporate liability. So basically you end up penalising those who commission and use the 'illegal' work. Easier to legislate for and easier for the boys in blue to get the evidence and prosecute. Do enough of them with some big fines, word gets on the street and most companies will start doing things properly. Jobs a good'un then. The problem is there's no penalty for anyone at the minute, those commissioning the work, and those performing the job.

Just my 2p worth

There is a penalty - if LAW has been broken. Statute states you need a PFAW to make money or otherwise.

The problem is no one wants to take ownership of follow up of someone reporting an offence.

Once someone takes ownership of the above the worm will turn.

The investigation is simple. We just need ownership to be had.

Thos that are responsible tell you they ar not investigating- you hold their feet to the fire.

This conversation will be redundant in the next few years when there is clear demarkation line who is responsible.

Every time you report someone and chase it up and not let the Police/CAA of the hook they will have procedures in place. Just the same as investigating a report of an individual driving with no licence or insurance (for the police for example-if they get ownership.)

Don't walk on by- REPORT-CHASE-thi swill hasten the above para

 

[licensed pilot]

I'm in the US, I report and forget about it. I certainly never obssess over the disposition of my complaint. Life is too short and I'd rather be flying...

 

[tweaker]

Agreed.

But over here in the UK we need to find out WHO to report too or we are just talking to an empty telephone/sending email into cyberspace. That is the crux of the issue.

 

[NickU]

Thing is, we can all report everything, jump up n down till we're blue in the face, it won't change anything.

Pc Plod has had his funding cut, he's way overstretched and he has to prioritise and make best use of his time and funds, so investigating who's pinching his teabags and milk from the kitchen fridge will always get priority . He doesn't know air-law, and he most likely isn't interested in getting to know it. He'd much rather do something he's familiar with and which will get the sarge of his back and bang up a couple if bad'uns who've been tearing the neighbourhood up in their corsa and pinching the pensioner's life savings.

Yes, it's breaking the law, so is burglary. You stand as much chance these days of getting them to investigate a break in as you do in getting them to chase uncle bob and his drone. They'll give you a crime number (if you're lucky) and hope you go away, if they're having a slow month, they might send someone round to dust the place down and take a few notes. If, however, it was an aggravated burglary, woah, now you're talking sir..... so it is with uncle bob from the local pub with his drone, 'what's that you say sir, he's unlicensed and selling stuff, we'll look in to it (maybe)’, or 'he's just crashed his drone though your car window and caused a pile up... we'll be right down....', or 'he's just hit the air ambulance, which has just hit a BBC film crew filming casualty, righto.... we'll all be along pronto...'.

Best way i think is definitely to make it an offence to commission or use media or data from an unlicensed and uninsured flight, and to actively prosecute the commissioners. Individuals and Company bosses take a noted degree of extra care over things when they suddenly become liable for their own requests and orders, rather than the expendable minion they get to do the job.

Anyway, it's Friday night... time for some falling down water and a movie . Hope you all have a good weekend. Safe flying everyone

 

[Dave Smith]

There isn't an industry on the planet that doesn't have its share of cowboys and the uav sector is not going to be any different. And, if I'm honest, I'm really not inclined to waste time and energy getting into a tailspin over it. I'd much rather spend the time building a business with a reputation for delivering a professional, reliable and top quality service.

Unfortunately, at the moment, there appears to be neither the will nor the resources to follow up on the numerous reports of illegal/dangerous uav work. Not until there is a significant incident (and there will be, eventually) will anything change. And I agree with other commenters that it will probably impact us more than the guy with the Maverick held together with gaffa tape.

 

[tweaker]

yes agreed as everyone has alluded too its happening

If every one agrees then by reporting every unlicensed operator/user of footage eventually something will have to be done and a clear reporting channel will exist.

Problem solved.

Whoever in the future is responsible phones user of said footage " see your using Aerial footage. Been reported to us you they have been filmed in contravention of AN02016. Just to clear it up what operator filmed it sir?"

"XYZ Filmed it Constable"

Quick check on XYZ - "Carry on using no probe he's licensed" Or " Take it down its illegal take a caution sir"

' But we paid x amount of £s-Boo Hoo Hoo"

"The laws the law sir. I suggest you get in touch with that operator you used and while your at it give us his contact details. Oh you will write a witness statement. Oh thank you"

Simples.

The problem is WHO investigates. Until this happens quite clearly nothing will be getting done.
I will find out. I will let you know. Goodnight.

 

[Cornscot]

Best way i think is definitely to make it an offence to commission or use media or data from an unlicensed and uninsured flight, and to actively prosecute the commissioners. Individuals and Company bosses take a noted degree of extra care over things when they suddenly become liable for their own requests and orders, rather than the expendable minion they get to do the job.

In full agreement - if we all put this in the DfT consulation feedback we might just get it... Benefits of drones to the UK economy - Consultations - GOV.UK

 

[360iFly]

Not a condolence but facing exactly the same issues in Cyprus.

 

[tweaker]

Not a condolence but facing exactly the same issues in Cyprus.

Strength in unity.
Turn a blind eye and nothing will get done.
Report EVERY time AND follow up.
Its the only way until a clear reporting channel is established.
No reporting no reporting channel. We are made to pay for PFAW. Make the authorities work for their money.

 

[stuartpb]

Look at it from another perspective for a mo. There will alway be the business owner/ manager who wants to cut corners or to save a bob or two. These are the people who drive demand for illicit SUAV operators. They are part of the problem and that needs addressing just as much as any other problem the industry faces.

As SUAV operators we have some responsibility in that. We need to be able to demonstrate to potential clients and to the sectors we are offering our services to that although corners can be cut and money can be saved, what cost does this come to in terms of operational safety, risk mitigation and being covered should something go wrong.

The industry is still in it's infancy, there is still a lack of knowledge on what is lawful and what isn't in many of the sectors we offer our services to. It's in our own interests and the interests of our own industry to see that knowledge grow. Even when everyone is batting off the same page in terms of awareness of the regulations, you are still going to get business owners who want to save a few quid and hire the donut down the pub who wants to make a few quid on the side with their drone. That's when the legislation should kick in and be able to deal with both.

I've had two scenarios where people have asked me to do some work, I've given the quotes and been met with "well X,Y or Z said they can do it for a lot less". Then it turns out X,Y or Z is their neighbour or someone who's a hobbyist and fancies their chances. My reaction has been to ask if they are PfCO holders, do they have PL insurance etc. then tell them why working with X,Y or Z is a bad idea. If they turned me down then at least they knew that what they were doing was wrong. They never did though.

 

[tweaker]

Yes get it.
However we must report it in fact why dont we create a thread for suspect non licensed users and we can all report the business using non licensed footage. 100s of reports hitting someones in box may grease the wheels somewhat......
LOL

 

[gazza95]

The MOU uploaded by Cornscot clearly states CAA are responsible for investigating and prosecuting breaches of PFCO and commercial work without permission. So if someone is conducting commercial work without PFCO we should be reporting to the CAA.

On the other side I believe the Hotel owner is not conducting commercial work. He is filming on his land for the benefit of his business. I understand the CAA does not regard this as commercial work. If he however films an event on his property and sells images to a third party it is commercial work.